The book is a pain to read if you're not into [it]. I would never force anyone to read that book. The writing style is enough to give nightmares.

Robert Cook said:

Oh, rather like THE GREAT GATSBY, eh?

Let me answer that here on the front page, because this is important. Yes. It is like "The Great Gatsby." Neither book should be forced on anyone. It's destructive of the capacity to appreciate exactly what is most notable, the strange locutions. If you are not in the mood to get inside those sentences and luxuriate and ideate, it's a damned pain. If you've been assigned the book and so you feel like powering through it, everything that's good about it will feel like a speed bump. People hate speed bumps. These English teachers who imagine they are serving up delight are making it hateful.

I've said this already, but I don't keep repeating it as I've blogged about isolated sentences from "The Great Gatsby" in my "Gatsby" project. So let me point out one place where I made the point clearly:

My initial motivation was love. I thought of all the high school students — I remember being one — who were assigned this book and made to read the whole thing. That being the task, the really interesting sentences are speed bumps. They're completely annoying. You can't take the time to figure them out. What should be loved is hated. Later in life, I reread the book and enjoyed it, because of the worthiness of individual sentences.

The writing style of "Beloved" is, in my opinion, much, much worse than "The Great Gatsby." Chances are, a high school student will resist the project of reading this material, especially since the teacher might not emphasize the artistry of the style. It may be administered medicinally, by a teacher who wants her presumably bland and cosseted students to vicariously inhabit the condition of slavery. This is a terrible idea. Recommend "Beloved" for optional, outside reading and give the students the 19th century narratives written by Americans who were themselves enslaved. That's real and that's free of the pretensions of poetry.

If my kid was having those kind of dreams, I'd make sure there wasn't something else bothering him.

As for "engaging in public activism", which would be quickly condemned as RRRAAACCCIIISSSSTTTT, how about getting the curriculum to include some of that DWM stuff that has some literary value rather than a book written by the moron who dubbed Willie Whitewater The First Black President?

Yes, I can imagine that, but I don't need to, it is the modern reality. Maybe the school system can substitute Barney until the case is decided. Playful pink predators is what modern children are accustomed to.

The mother here assumes naively that her son and his peer group do not already discuss or even make jokes about such subject matter. I suspect she did not like the idea of her son reading the book and so she has claimed he suffered nightmares as a result of reading it.

The Company that runs the farce that is AP has done an excellent job marketing their tests, getting buy-in from Colleges (who then don't have to have their precious English Faculty soil their hands with mere freshman) and from Parents who can boast to their oh-so-impressed neighbors that little Johnny is taking AP English. I am very happy that my kids' High School downplays AP curricula.

This book actually gave me nightmares when I would read it before going to bed.

It's still a kick-ass book, though, and greatly recommended for anyone interested in the Soviet Gulag system.

As for mom in the WaPo story, DC is just full of self-involved, tightly wound women like this, and they're just best avoided if at all possible. Probably tough to do if you're the principal of her kid's school...

Generally, schools allow students to elect to substitute for a book which they or their parents find objectionable. It's not clear where this was the case here. However, I was not particularly impressed with the book and (a) don't think it's great literature and (b) object to the mindset that some people seem to have that it's great because of the brutish content.

In the book the mother kills her baby so it won't have a life of slavery and other horrors that actually did happen, a, what's the word for that?, an amalgamation, a melange, a composite, or perhaps a laminate, I forget.

Son, the time has come for you to know the truth about yourself for these disturbing dreams signal the awakening of your true nature. You see, Son, all along, all of our activities have revolved around your proper development, a delicate matter, yes, centered on you to prepare you for this challenge and now your report of disturbing dreams confirms the blossoming of your spirit into your mature manifestation of the fountainfhead from which you sprang and all mankind awaits your taking up of robe and this here orb and scepter. Take 'em. Take 'em, I said.

A sure test for "this sucks so bad you wouldn't read it if you weren't forced is"... when you're forced.

I question the modern notion of giving teenagers depressing, fatalistic, emotion-jerking, literature "because that's what they're into". They also commit suicide at higher rates than other ages and go on mass murdering rampages. So?

Lastly... "chose something else" is not censorship or "banning". Every book that is assigned represents the "banning" of 99.99% of English language literature.

Honestly... I don't really care. I don't know if the book is inappropriate or not, but if a 17 year old can't go to a rated R movie, I don't really see a problem restricting the content that is forced on students in school.

It also occurs to me that a lot of these high-achieving kids are the same ones who are more likely to have some emotional fragility. And teen years are a fragile time.

Robert Cook said...The mother here assumes naively that her son and his peer group do not already discuss or even make jokes about such subject matter. I suspect she did not like the idea of her son reading the book and so she has claimed he suffered nightmares as a result of reading it.

Once again, comrade Bob, trying to hijack the narrative by arguing facts not in evidence.

The kid in question is a senior? Really? Isn't that nearly old enough to sign up for military service?

Sheeeet - I had nightmares as a much younger kid when my Brownie troop decided to study civil defense, nuclear war, and radiation poisoning in the mid 1970's. Graphic details regarding how we were all going to be fried by the Russians was the order of the day. No detail was spared: melting eyeballs, vomiting, hair loss....

I had nightmares about nuclear war - and went on to live a pretty normal life.

Synova said... The book is probably assigned for the *purpose* of upsetting the kids, so they get upset about slavery. Maybe?

Driving home the monstrousness of slavery is step 1. Step 2 is alleging white guilt. The emotionalism of step 1 breaks down people's will to resist step 2 and makes it easier for them to believe those resisting are defending slavery rather than denying guilt for the actions of other people.

This. I haven't read the book, so I don't have a good sense in what was bothersome, but I think a case could be made that something might be too gruesome to include. But by high school, you should be able to handle most stuff - otherwise history would be impossible.

No Synova, we can never be totally be immune from life's horrors. It's advantageous to a child and especially a teen to have been exposed to some of life's less please realities, age appropriate of course. So when the hit their freshman year they don't have a nervous breakdown or drink themselves silly ( some will anyway).

I've seen my children's friends who came from overly protective homes flounder in freshman year and drop out and move back home to mom and dad.

A) How did Fairfax County resolve the challenge to Huck Finn? That would tell you a lot about how seriously they treat challenging literature.

B) The person from American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom seemed to suggest that objecting to this book might be racist. What a cheap shot! Yes, I know that Virginia was in the Confederacy, but Fairfax County is pretty liberal.

C) When I was in Army AIT (that's the training after Basic and before the Army sends you out to actually do something)in the middle of the Viet Nam War, my buddies and I saw the "Wild Bunch" at the post movie theater. There were guys who were heading to Viet Nam in a few weeks who got nightmares from that movie. I doubt that the movie "innoculated" them from the horrors of war, but I really don't see the need to wrap a 17-year-old in a cocoon to keep him/her from being scared.

D) And Ann you are right that the kid is (or at least should be) pissed off as Hell at his mom for embarrassing him this way.

At what age are you supposed to stop discussing things that disturb you with your parents? I think it's preposterous that this women is trying to have the book banned because of the reaction of her son, but that isn't the kid's fault. At the same time, anyone saying this is a helicopter parent who needs to butt out is misguided. Parents should be involved in the education of their children. It's better if this involves knowing what they're being taught and counteracting that where necessary. But the grievance culture is vibrant because of the left's careful nurtering and it's funny to see a bit of blowback.

The "we should be exposing kids to as much great literature as possible" isn't too convincing when school districts have been all too willing to ban (actual) great literature that offended certain sensibilities when those sensibilities derive from a politically correct worldview.

At what age are you supposed to stop discussing things that disturb you with your parents? I think it's preposterous that this women is trying to have the book banned because of the reaction of her son, but that isn't the kid's fault. At the same time, anyone saying this is a helicopter parent who needs to butt out is misguided. Parents should be involved in the education of their children. It's better if this involves knowing what they're being taught and counteracting that where necessary. But the grievance culture is vibrant because of the left's careful nurtering and it's funny to see a bit of blowback.

The "we should be exposing kids to as much great literature as possible" isn't too convincing when school districts have been all too willing to ban (actual) great literature that offended certain sensibilities when those sensibilities derive from a politically correct worldview.

Didn't Althouse have something a while back about getting rid of so much fiction in English classes? I'd say if you want to have the kids think about slavery, Frederick Douglass' memoirs would be a lot more worthwhile than any mere novel could possibly be.

I thought Beloved was an excellent read. Disturbing but not so much so to give an average 17 year old nightmares. At 17, to me, old horror movies at midnight when I was alone babysitting was far more frightening.

When I was 12 or 13 I ready a book that gave me nightmares, The Biography of a Grizzly. I was scared to death or a being attacked by a grizzly. Eventually I realized, except for zoos, the closest grizzly was 2,000 miles or more away.

But, I tried to get all my friends to read it because it was great. I loved reading scary books.

Didn't Althouse have something a while back about getting rid of so much fiction in English classes? I'd say if you want to have the kids think about slavery, Frederick Douglass' memoirs would be a lot more worthwhile than any mere novel could possibly be.

Those are completely separate concepts. English as a language and the way the author uses the tools of the language are the study of English: the elements of speech, grammatical rules and the deliberate breaking of the rules, stylistic uses of language, use of imagery, similes, analogies, poetic devices. Description? Depth of characters. These and many other things are the study of English and English writing classes.

If you want to know "about" a subject like slavery and read Douglass for the historical perspective and not necessarily the literary qualties THAT is something else entirely.

Sure, English Literature, would and should put the piece of work you are studying into historical perspective.....such as The Great Gatsby. It makes more sense of the novel if you also understand the dynamics of the historical period and the cultural issues surrounding the characters in the book. BUT>>>>> the historical aspects are secondary to the literary aspects.

There is really no point in reading any fiction until you finished all the true stuff.

I suggest the boy and his mother both read "The Boys of 67," "The Outpost," and "The Korean War: Pusan to Chosin: An Oral History" for starters. That will give them insight into what eighteen-year-olds have dealt with in the not so distant past.

From what I understand, Frederick Douglas's memoirs were to a certain extent fiction.....I didn't read Beloved. The plot points sound depressing, but fortunately the writer's style is too turgid and murky to cause the material to get under your skin.......I suppose you can justify the assignment in that, as an adult, one is forced to read much eye glazing material and write many eye glazing reports oneself. So the project has character building aspects to it. My suspicion, however, is not that the book was assigned to inform the readers of the horrors of slavery so much as it was to let the readers know how awful white people were.

There is really no point in reading any fiction until you finished all the true stuff.

I don't think you understand the difference between fact and fiction and why BOTH are important. Fiction is vital to growing minds to be able to use their imaginations. To be able to envision themselves in the situation or in the plot. To.... SEE the story in their minds eye.

Non fiction is good as instructive, historical, scientific learning experiences. A really GOOD non fiction book can do both. Stimulate the imagination and instruct in history or science. Good historical fiction can cross the divide as well. I've read some excellent historical fiction books of Peter the Great and some fascinating non fiction biographies.

History should be taught in HISTORY class and advance placement English should focus on ...oh...I don't know....how about ENGLISH literature instead of indoctrination and propaganda. I agree with Kirk. The purpose of the book was not to study English or Literature.

Perhaps if our little precious snowflake in this news article had been allowed to read the ORIGINAL Grimm fairy tales (which were really pretty scary) ,when he was a child, he would have not been such a panty waisted wuss.

Also, I do disagree with the equivalence you're making ("English" == "literature" == "fiction".) There's more to the study of language than just literature, and a lot more to literature than just fiction.

9/10's of high school kids (or middle school kids in fact) would get more value from their English classes if the required reading was a larger volume of more interesting material. The bottom line is that few kids read any books other than those they are required to, and part of the distaste for reading seems to be rooted in educators eccentric literary choices. And teachers seem to take a tremendously long time on a single detestable book.

Many of the educators choices are dreadful, like this one, especially for boys. Nearly anything in the line of popular non-fiction would be an improvement, as would most popular male-oriented fiction.

When I was very young I was a fan westerns, of Zane Grey and Louis L'Amour. These would still work today. A nice literary choice in this line would be Wisters The Virginian.

There's more to the study of language than just literature, and a lot more to literature than just fiction.

True. There is also poetry. Semantics, linguistic anthropology and my very favorite-- linguistic etymology.

However, I was under the impression that this class in question was an advanced English placement class and as such would be studying the written words in English. Generally that means fiction....however.... a good non fiction or science based book could be interesting. HOWEVER.... the point of the class is not to learn science but to study the written language.

There are many books that are great fun to read that aren't fabulous works of literature. You need to read those types of books to get the love of reading. Edgar Rice Burroughs (hi Synova) was one of my childhood favorites. Loved the Mars series. I read everyone more than once.

THEN there are those great works of fiction that will kill dead any love of reading that you might have: Great Expectations comes to mind.

Many of the educators choices are dreadful, like this one, especially for boys. Nearly anything in the line of popular non-fiction would be an improvement, as would most popular male-oriented fiction.

Agreed. The reading needs to not only be something that the teacher use to illustrate the subject of ENGLISH writing...but also be something enjoyable that the students will like to read.

I'm pretty indiscriminate in my reading that I will read almost everything I can get my hands on. Almost.

Ya....but....but....those books have icky guns and people shooting them and....and...every THING!!! I mean GUNS!!!

OMG. Violence and boys are so mean and icky already....and if they read that stuff, they will go off and start wars and things....oooooh.....

/wink.

What we need is to have more male teachers and let the boys be boys and the girls be girls. I'm even in favor of single gender classrooms. Except that I wouldn't have been able to take all of those science classes and shop classes...so nevermind :-)

I read somewhere that in the'30s that the Roosevelt administration, as part of its Writers' Project, sent writers out to record the experiences of elderly blacks who actually lived under slavery. These tapes are somewhere in the Library of Congress.

You would think there would have been alot of interest these tapes, but for some reason there hasn't been much attention paid to them. Why? Who knows?

There has been only one time in my life that an English teacher or professor has led me to like a book better, to get more interested in it. There have been many books that I read before getting it assigned in class that the teacher actually ruined for me. They took a book I liked and made a book I didn't like.

The only book that a teacher helped me like? Paradise Lost. We were assigned some excerpts to read before class. I barely read any of it. BORING! After the lecture, I bought the whole book and read through the whole thing (and Paradise Regained) in about 5 days over an extended weekend break.

Toni Morrison sucks. If you're going to read a book for English Lit read a piece of great literature - not a quota novel.

If you wish to read about Slavery, read "Twelve Years a Slave: A Narrative of Solomon Northup, a citizen of New-York, kidnapped in Washington city in 1841, and rescued in 1853, from a cotton plantation near the Red River in Louisiana"

The best thing that can be said of Toni Morrison's writing is that it's not as bad as Maya Angelou's, which is genuinely atrocious.

As Althouse suggested, read the 19th Century writings by former slaves. The very best is Fredrick Douglass' autobiography (his first of three) written in 1845. Most of these students, unfortunately, probably have little or no idea of who Frederick Douglas was.

My son took AP courses. I've known friends whose kids took AP courses. -- I think all AP courses are a joke. Too much work for very little reward even if the kid passes the AP test. Not enough kids pass the tests to justify their continuance. For a lot of kids their hard work earns the 'reward' of a lower GPA.

I had nightmares after reading Myra Breckinridge in high school. Sadly, it wasn't assigned in school. I had to keep my nightmares to myself because my mother would have grounded me for life if she'd known about it. Think of the fun I denied her.

Thank god, Althouse, you're a law professor and not a lit professor. In fact, novels are something greater than a collection of sentences--or at least they should be. And "Beloved" is about something more profound than the evils of slavery. It's about a whole cohort of a race of Americans who, born into almost unimaginably brutal conditions, have a really tenuous grip on their own humanity. And so all their relationships--mother and child, man and woman--are poisoned by that. I, and many other readers, find that a deeply affecting theme; and I personally think that you're lacking something as a person if you're not also moved by that. It's not ridiculous that it would give a reader nightmares--it's a nightmarish book. And if you think that there's something evil about a work of art that gives you nightmares, mom in Virginia, then I kind of feel sorry for you.

I also, by the way, think that "Gatsby" is a great work. But I don't think its greatness can be discovered in randomly selected sentences.

That will give them insight into what eighteen-year-olds have dealt with in the not so distant past.

I just finished listening to some ‘hardcore history’ podcasts on the Mongols and the Russian front during WWII. Both were very disturbing (but interesting and highly recommended!). Compared to what people have dealt with throughout history, we have it easy.

THEN there are those great works of fiction that will kill dead any love of reading that you might have: Great Expectations comes to mind.

I hate that story too. But so long as English class is giving you a wide range of literature to read, I don’t see the problem. If you read a lot of books, you are going to run across things you like and things you don’t but you can’t know until you actually read them.

What I hated was the obsessive level of detail they asked on tests, to try to weed out the people who just read cliffs notes or watched the movies. I don't like to read a story trying to obsessively memorize what was on the table in chapter 3 as I go along. That will kill your love of reading quickly, just as having to memorize a thousand dates and little else can kill your love of history, which is actually fascinating.

"I had to read Native Son in high school. Now that book I found disturbing. I still get creeped out by the idea of that girl getting cut up and loaded into a furnace. (or something like that)"

Yes, that's the odd part but overall its very good. I think Baldwin is my favorite AA novelist. The problem with Literature is some people don't appreciate style while others obsess about it. You see the same thing in Movies. You have "The mob" - who only appreciate plot and action vs. "the snobs" - who can only appreciate great photography and symbolism.